(January 26, 2014 at 11:26 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Okay. Totally missed the point. But despite responding with appeal to an incoherent conception of a singular nature that consists of three distinct and separate identities,

You can try and dismiss this, but it happened to be the central theme of Christianity.

Quote:you still have no rationalization for the general concept that "innocent blood" "cleanses" "sin,"

because you did not ask for one.

Quote: which was taken quite literally by biblical authors, or for the idea that killing livestock due to their "moral innocence" could somehow balance out bad behavior.

live stock was used because that is the president God Himself set to cover the sin and shame by Adam and Eve.

Children were not used in genesis three animals were that is why using children is not acceptable and certain live stock were.

Quote:Again, I ask, what's more innocent than a child?

in the OT a lamb, in the NT Christ.

Quote: one has a really "big" sin to account for, what could possibly be better than offering one's own child as a "four-fold payment"?

as I have already demonstrated child sacrifice was not suitable for anything concerning cleansing sin.

Quote:GC has already demonstrated that this is the logic Yahweh operates on in his admission that David "paid" for his sins by the death of his newborn, Jesus "paid" for our sins by shedding his human blood, and yet--oh no, child sacrifice is far too abhorrent to even consider the possibility that Yahweh could accept such a thing! Please, come back with a bit of sense, will ya?

Then all gc or you have to do to cement your point is provide book chapter and verse that supports this connection that your argument hinges on. GC may be representing a specific church doctrine which is fine, and there is no sin about it. If however you are concerned with what the God of the bible thinks then it is on you to provide book chapter and verse to support your assertion. Otherwise know you or whomever else has created a picture of God that is not supported scripturaly.

(January 26, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 26, 2014 at 11:26 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Okay. Totally missed the point. But despite responding with appeal to an incoherent conception of a singular nature that consists of three distinct and separate identities,

You can try and dismiss this, but it happened to be the central theme of Christianity.

Quote:you still have no rationalization for the general concept that "innocent blood" "cleanses" "sin,"

because you did not ask for one.

Quote: which was taken quite literally by biblical authors, or for the idea that killing livestock due to their "moral innocence" could somehow balance out bad behavior.

live stock was used because that is the president God Himself set to cover the sin and shame by Adam and Eve.

Children were not used in genesis three animals were that is why using children is not acceptable and certain live stock were.

Quote:Again, I ask, what's more innocent than a child?

in the OT a lamb, in the NT Christ.

Quote: one has a really "big" sin to account for, what could possibly be better than offering one's own child as a "four-fold payment"?

as I have already demonstrated child sacrifice was not suitable for anything concerning cleansing sin.

Quote:GC has already demonstrated that this is the logic Yahweh operates on in his admission that David "paid" for his sins by the death of his newborn, Jesus "paid" for our sins by shedding his human blood, and yet--oh no, child sacrifice is far too abhorrent to even consider the possibility that Yahweh could accept such a thing! Please, come back with a bit of sense, will ya?

Then all gc or you have to do to cement your point is provide book chapter and verse that supports this connection that your argument hinges on. GC may be representing a specific church doctrine which is fine, and there is no sin about it. If however you are concerned with what the God of the bible thinks then it is on you to provide book chapter and verse to support your assertion. Otherwise know you or whomever else has created a picture of God that is not supported scripturaly.

I did. And beyond what the texts themselves describe, I further interpreted them in light of the general principle that Yahweh operates on, which is the purification of sin through the shedding of innocent blood, while you appealed to some contrary system of values (your own, presumably). I also pointed out that Hebrew scholars, who study the texts and the culture, also reach similar conclusions, and therefore it is something you should at least consider as a possibility. On the one hand, you do consider it a possibility, because lambs and Jesus are sufficient blood sacrifices due to their "innocence" (though I don't think animals are morally "innocent" or "guilty"), but on the other hand, IT CANNOT BE CHILDREN, which you demand for arbitrary reasons that not even Yahweh takes seriously, evidenced in the case of Jephthah, Abraham, David, and of course, his own "son," Jesus.

(January 26, 2014 at 12:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I did.

actually you didn't you posted random verses that contextually do not support your arguement. That is why I asked you to post scripture that does.

Quote:And beyond what the texts themselves describe, I further interpreted them in light of the general principle that Yahweh operates on, which is the purification of sin through the shedding of innocent blood, while you appealed to some contrary system of values (your own, presumably).

This further explaination needs to be supported scripturaly in such a way as to tie in with the verses you have yet to provide. Without the connective scripture you are speaking where the bible is not. Which is ok for church doctrine, but not representing the God of the bible.

As this is the nature of the conversation I am having with you I expect no less from you. If your not able to provide the scripture I pointed out that you need, then your efforts will be dismissed as some abstract personal version of Christianity if it does not align itself with some establish for of the christian religion.

Quote:I also pointed out that Hebrew scholars, who study the texts and the culture, also reach similar conclusions, and therefore it is something you should at least consider as a possibility.

the Hebrew scholars did not seem to be aware of the passage in numbers 3 that dismissed their claims. I'm not saying there aren't any 'scholars' who make mistakes on this level, I am saying they are few and far between if you found several who think this way especially when there is scripture just a few chapters away from the scripture in question... Then most likely they are not who they or you say they are.

Quote:On the one hand, you do consider it a possibility, because lambs and Jesus are sufficient blood sacrifices due to their "innocence" (though I don't think animals are morally "innocent" or "guilty"), but on the other hand, IT CANNOT BE CHILDREN, which you demand for arbitrary reasons that not even Yahweh takes seriously, evidenced in the case of Jephthah, Abraham, David, and of course, his own "son," Jesus.

Are you intentionally being obstinate or do you really not get it? God identified the sin sacrifice from the Jews on one day of the year. This day of attonement is still known as the most holy day on the Jews calendar. (Yom kippur) priestEven secular Jews observe this day. On this one day of attonement a sin sacrifice is offered by the high priest for the whole nation. This most holy most sacred sacrifice according to numbers 29 did not include children. Like you or your so called experts have foolishly speculated.
The Day of Atonement

7 “There will be a special meeting on the tenth day of the seventh month. During that day you must not eat any food,[e] and you must not do any work. 8 You will offer burnt offerings. Their smell will please the Lord. You must offer 1 bull, 1 ram, and 7 lambs that are one year old. There must be nothing wrong with them. 9 You must also offer 24 cups of fine flour mixed with olive oil with the bull, 16 cups with the ram, 10 and 8 cups with each of the 7 lambs. 11 You will also offer 1 male goat as a sin offering. This will be in addition to the sin offering for the Day of Atonement. This will also be in addition to the daily sacrifice and its grain offerings and drink offerings.

In this recipe do you see a call for 10 cups of freshly chopped children? What about whole ones? Is children mention any place in the offering of attonement? No? The offering children must not have been how a levitical priest was to make a sin offering.

Your ignorance here compounded by your 'experts' in basic OT law screams that you or your experts are just making crap up based on how you think OT Judaism worked. You guys have no idea what you are talking about and it shows.

(January 26, 2014 at 2:28 pm)Drich Wrote: As this is the nature of the conversation I am having with you I expect no less from you. If your not able to provide the scripture I pointed out that you need, then your efforts will be dismissed as some abstract personal version of Christianity if it does not align itself with some establish for of the christian religion.

Read the OP. Given that animals and cattle weren't circumcised or merely "dedicated" to God (but oh it sounds so much sweeter, doesn't it?), I think "do the same" should be read as well, "do the same." Either they sacrificed their firstborn (the horrifying laws Yahweh himself admits giving in Ezekiel, though you somehow dispute Yahweh's own admission) or they merely "dedicated" their cattle, no slaughter involved. Is that what you're claiming? But that's not so horrifying, as Yahweh himself declared it to be.

Quote: the Hebrew scholars did not seem to be aware of the passage in numbers 3 that dismissed their claims. I'm not saying there aren't any 'scholars' who make mistakes on this level, I am saying they are few and far between if you found several who think this way especially when there is scripture just a few chapters away from the scripture in question... Then most likely they are not who they or you say they are.

Numbers 3 is a long way off from Exodus (well, technically speaking, you only jumped a book). Since they weren't the same author, and probably included many revisionists, your point here is no more relevant than pointing to how other Jewish practices have evolved over the centuries. As I pointed out, the Abraham-Isaac myth represented this very evolution, and far more poetically than the money-grubbing tale of Aaron and his sons.

Quote:Are you intentionally being obstinate or do you really not get it? God identified the sin sacrifice from the Jews on one day of the year. This day of attonement is still known as the most holy day on the Jews calendar. (Yom kippur) priestEven secular Jews observe this day. On this one day of attonement a sin sacrifice is offered by the high priest for the whole nation. This most holy most sacred sacrifice according to numbers 29 did not include children. Like you or your so called experts have foolishly speculated.
The Day of Atonement

7 “There will be a special meeting on the tenth day of the seventh month. During that day you must not eat any food,[e] and you must not do any work. 8 You will offer burnt offerings. Their smell will please the Lord. You must offer 1 bull, 1 ram, and 7 lambs that are one year old. There must be nothing wrong with them. 9 You must also offer 24 cups of fine flour mixed with olive oil with the bull, 16 cups with the ram, 10 and 8 cups with each of the 7 lambs. 11 You will also offer 1 male goat as a sin offering. This will be in addition to the sin offering for the Day of Atonement. This will also be in addition to the daily sacrifice and its grain offerings and drink offerings.

In this recipe do you see a call for 10 cups of freshly chopped children? What about whole ones? Is children mention any place in the offering of attonement? No? The offering children must not have been how a levitical priest was to make a sin offering.

Here we agree, given the eventual establishment of sin sacrifice exclusively through livestock, one of the few instances where the segregation of Jewish practices from their polytheistic neighbors actually saw a moral improvement in the law.

Quote:Your ignorance here compounded by your 'experts' in basic OT law screams that you or your experts are just making crap up based on how you think OT Judaism worked. You guys have no idea what you are talking about and it shows.

Maybe not but given your requirement for blood sacrifice that demands the death of an "innocent," I'm sure as hell interpreting the Scripture much more consistently while your moral relativism has no leg to stand beyond Yahwh's arbitrary desire for the smell of blood in one instance and total outrage at it the next.

We're arguing in circles and I don't think either of us is going to budge. Maybe it would be more productive to figure what exactly is moral about sacrificing innocent human blood as payment for the sinful. If you had some argument here, I actually think it would render my other points moot. But I don't blame you for avoiding this claim of yours.

My argument is in direct contrast to the OP. In that God does not require child sacrifice. I have yet to begin to refute this new second arguement.

If you believe God required human sacrifice then please show book chapter and verse where a human was sacrificed. (You haven't yet)

(January 26, 2014 at 6:22 pm)Drich Wrote: My argument is in direct contrast to the OP. In that God does not require child sacrifice. I have yet to begin to refute this new second arguement.

If you believe God required human sacrifice then please show book chapter and verse where a human was sacrificed. (You haven't yet)

Again, David's child (i.e. the "four-fold payment") and Jesus are uncontested examples.

Abraham's son and Jephthah's daughter are more disputable, though their sacrificial offerings of their children would later earn them praise as heroes of faith.

And of course, the explicit command and later remorse in Exodus and Ezekiel, respectively, that you interpret more vaguely on the account of other, later evolved traditions.

(January 26, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(January 26, 2014 at 6:22 pm)Drich Wrote: My argument is in direct contrast to the OP. In that God does not require child sacrifice. I have yet to begin to refute this new second arguement.

If you believe God required human sacrifice then please show book chapter and verse where a human was sacrificed. (You haven't yet)

Again, David's child (i.e. the "four-fold payment") and Jesus are uncontested examples.

David's son was not sacrificed let me try once more to get this through your dense head, David's sin was forgiven by God before He made the child ill, so there was no need for a sacrifice for David's sin. Another reason it was not a sacrifice is because man didn't offer the child up to God. Think this will sink in this time, you and other atheist here are so ignorant of what the scriptures say I really do not know why you try, your just making yourself look ridiculous.

Quote:Abraham's son and Jephthah's daughter are more disputable, though their sacrificial offerings of their children would later earn them praise as heroes of faith.

Abraham did not sacrifice his son, now you are deliberately lying, and Abraham became the father of the Israelite nation not a hero.
Jephthah made a stupid mistake thinking something other than his daughter would be coming out the door first, God did not tell him to take the life of his daughter, but out of Jephthah's need to keep a vow he killed her. God used this terrible and unfortunate act as a teaching through a reminder of the virgins ceremony of remorse.

Quote:And of course, the explicit command and later remorse in Exodus and Ezekiel, respectively, that you interpret more vaguely on the account of other, later evolved traditions.

I have asked you several times to show where God said to sacrifice children and Drich is now asking the same thing, if you do not have it then you need to quit showing off your ignorance and just stop, you are becoming a pitiful example for atheism.

GC

As usual, you seem to be a lousy jew, G-C.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromot...nt-israel/

Quote:In conclusion, therefore, it seems quite likely that, contrary to biblical polemic and Deuteronomistic historiogrpahical distortion, human (child) sacrifice was a traditional Canaanite (and hence Israelite) practice, and that mlk sacrifices were indeed devoted to YHWH, even among royal (so-called official) circles.

(January 26, 2014 at 9:55 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(January 26, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Again, David's child (i.e. the "four-fold payment") and Jesus are uncontested examples.

David's son was not sacrificed let me try once more to get this through your dense head, David's sin was forgiven by God before He made the child ill, so there was no need for a sacrifice for David's sin. Another reason it was not a sacrifice is because man didn't offer the child up to God. Think this will sink in this time, you and other atheist here are so ignorant of what the scriptures say I really do not know why you try, your just making yourself look ridiculous.

Quote:Abraham's son and Jephthah's daughter are more disputable, though their sacrificial offerings of their children would later earn them praise as heroes of faith.

Abraham did not sacrifice his son, now you are deliberately lying, and Abraham became the father of the Israelite nation not a hero.
Jephthah made a stupid mistake thinking something other than his daughter would be coming out the door first, God did not tell him to take the life of his daughter, but out of Jephthah's need to keep a vow he killed her. God used this terrible and unfortunate act as a teaching through a reminder of the virgins ceremony of remorse.

Quote:And of course, the explicit command and later remorse in Exodus and Ezekiel, respectively, that you interpret more vaguely on the account of other, later evolved traditions.

I have asked you several times to show where God said to sacrifice children and Drich is now asking the same thing, if you do not have it then you need to quit showing off your ignorance and just stop, you are becoming a pitiful example for atheism.

GC

1. So God just struck David's child with a deadly illness for no reason? Because Yahweh is a cold-blooded murderer? And that's your moral standard by which you condemn child sacrifice?
2. Your heroes of faith include David, Abraham, and Jephthah, the latter two who attempted to kill their child as sacrifices to Yahweh, only one of which was prevented.

And you think there's something wrong with me and my views?

(January 26, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Again, David's child (i.e. the "four-fold payment")

David's Child is not an example of a sacrifice, why? Because OT sacrifices had to follow certain rules and cermonies. David's son got sick and died.
All the while while the boy was sick David prayed and fasted for a recovery. The primary reason this was not a sacrifice was because David did not freely give his son.
and it is not like God cursed the marriage between David and bathsheba either, they had another son who became king.
(Solomon) the Lord loved solomon and blessed him greatly.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NCV

Quote:and Jesus are uncontested examples.

Jesus was God's sacrifice for Humanity. The death of Christ did not cost Humanity anything. Bottom line God has not ask for one Human soul to be sacrificed to Him.
The only thing resembling Human sacrifice was in His own Son, but as so many of you point out "if Jesus was resurected from the Dead then what was sacrificed?"
Can't have it both ways old sport.

Quote:Abraham's son and Jephthah's daughter are more disputable, though their sacrificial offerings of their children would later earn them praise as heroes of faith.

Abraham's willingness and obediance/Faith was what made him a great man, not killing his son.. Because infact he did not.

Jeph, did what He pledged to do, God did not ask this of him.

Quote:And of course, the explicit command and later remorse in Exodus and Ezekiel, respectively, that you interpret more vaguely on the account of other, later evolved traditions.

what are you talking about?